[Previous by date - Wagner's proposals]
[Next by date - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Previous by subject - Re: Another Possible Problem with Naming Conventions for Pan=]
[Next by subject - Re: Apomorphy-based clades; was Re: Panstems]
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 18:07:40 -0600 (CST)
From: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU>
To: David Marjanovic <David.Marjanovic@gmx.at>
Cc: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Another example
At 10:25 PM 2/5/01 +0100, David Marjanovic wrote: >Ornithurae has seen lots of different usages over time, Unfortunately, I personally do not feel that the phylocode can take on such divisive taxonomic issues in an example. Perhaps I am alone in this. Note that I specifically did *not* recommend a solution to the Mammalia issue, indeed all I suggested was that an apomorphy-based definition was probably NOT the answer. And, for all the picking I do on Ankylopollexia, I just modify the currently published definition slightly. FYI: I am a crown-cladist whenever possible. >I'd suggest an apomorphy-based definition which would at present have the same >contents as Pygostylia -- or just drop it, because it has caused so much >confusion and has been used as sister group of demonstrably para or >polyphyletic "Sauriurae". As I told Dr. Hillis, I do not advocate the use of apomorphy-based clades, and I especially do not advocate it once a the name has been clearly associated with another type of definition (as a personal preference, I find it less distasteful if switched between node- and stem-based definitions). Ornithurae, although not very old, has been used extensively, according to several different "concepts," and has been "defined" twice* (as a stem-based-, and as a node-based name). Regardless on one's take on priority prior to the establishment of the PhyloCode, it seems clear that adding an additional definition, of a third class, is unwieldly. In any event, the name has taken on a "life of its own" (as I put it, so tritely), in that, although its placement varies, sometimes independently of one's crown group policy, it inevitably appears in any discussion of early birds. Dropping it would therefore be somewhat irritating, it seems that everyone agrees that, whichever position it occupies, that position needs a name. Eliminating this name requires then the coining of TWO new names, as opposed to one. I don't know what will eventually happen, maybe a coin will be flipped. Jonathan R. Wagner * Actually, at least three times, Gauthier 1986, Padian Hutchinson and Holtz 1999, and Sereno 1999. The first and last definitions are operationally identical, within their respective contexts... the situation is yet another example of why species make the best specifiers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053 "Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic lifeform?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi